On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion holding that a UCC-3 termination statement that is authorized by the secured party is effective to terminate the original UCC filing even though the secured party did not actually intend to extinguish the underlying security interest.1 Because the court determined that the relevant section of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) is unambiguous and
On October 16, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an order requiring a real estate lender, First National Bank (the “Lender”), to refund certain mortgage payments it received from Protective Health Management (the “Debtor”), an affiliate of its borrower.1 Because the mortgage payments constituted actual fraudulent transfers, the Fifth Circuit held that the Lender could retain the payments only to the extent of the value of the Debtor’s continued use of the property.2&
Another bankruptcy court—this time in New York—has weighed in on the issue of whether “make whole” provisions are enforceable in bankruptcy. See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, et al. (a/k/a Momentive Performance Materials).
Given the unfortunate reputation of French courts for awarding substantial damages to employees for unfair terminations, US corporations with operations in France are anxious to limit their financial and legal exposure in case of litigation initiated by their French workforce. How to achieve this efficiently is a far from rhetorical question as French employees frequently pull in the US parent company as a named defendant. The recent decision of the French Supreme Court [Cass. Soc.
As the wave of litigation spawned by the 2008 financial crisis begins to ebb, insurance-coverage litigation arising out of the credit crisis continues unabated. Financial institutions have successfully pursued insurance coverage for many credit-crisis claims under directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies that they purchased to protect themselves against wrongful-act claims brought by their customers, but in response, some insurers continue to raise inapplicable exclusions in an attempt to diminish or limit coverage for their policyholders.
One of the more effective risk-mitigation legal tools used by senior real estate lenders is the single purpose entity borrower. Among other things, having a single purpose, bankruptcy remote borrower makes avoiding the risks of bankruptcy easier. Even in bankruptcy, if the borrower is truly single purpose, and it keeps the universe of creditors small, the senior secured lender will have an easier time defeating any plan of reorganization proposed by the borrower because it will control all of the legitimate classes of creditors by virtue of th
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”) issued an opinion limiting the ability of a “loan to own” secured creditor to credit bid at an auction for the sale of substantially all of the debtors’ assets.1 The Court focused on the fact that the creditor’s conduct interfered with the sale process and was motivated by its desire to “own the Debtors’ business” rather than to have its d
On January 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered an order in the Fisker Automotive (“Fisker”) chapter 11 bankruptcy cases limiting the ability of Fisker’s secured lender, Hybrid Tech Holdings, LLC (“Hybrid”), to credit bid at an auction for the sale of substantially all of Fisker’s assets.1 Hybrid immediately sought an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s
In recent years, bankruptcy courts have come closer to reaching a consensus regarding their ability to recharacterize debt into equity. Yet, beneath this consensus lies a deepening divide that lenders should be aware of. Recharacterization challenges “the assertion of a debt against the bankruptcy estate on the ground that the ‘loaned’ capital was actually an equity investment.” In re Insilco Techs., Inc., 480 F.3d 212, 217 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted).
Bankruptcy is intended to provide a fresh start and discharge outstanding debt. But some debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. A Virginia bankruptcy court held last week that a judgment against the debtor for intentional trade secret misappropriation is not dischargeable.